Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Stress and intimate partner aggression
Christopher I Eckhardt1 and Dominic J Parrott2
Evidence suggests that stressed couples also tend to be
aggressive couples. Chronic external stresses interact with
individuals dispositional and regulatory deficiencies, resulting
in a spillover of these stresses into the relationship. High
individual stress in combination with problematic interaction
styles and problem-solving abilities increases the likelihood of
IPA. We applied the I3 Model to better organize the instigating,
impelling, and inhibiting factors and processes that moderate
the stress-IPA association. Evidence suggests that certain
forms of stress, such as IPA victimization, reliably instigate IPA
perpetration, with weak inhibitory processes and impaired
problem solving moderating the stress-IPA association. More
research is needed that specifies the perfect storm of factors
that increase our understanding of how, and for whom, stress
increases IPA risk.

relationship between stress and IPA [3] can be better

understood as certain at-risk individuals being more susceptible to the effects of stress on IPA perpetration. Thus,
stress is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of IPA
practical and clinical experiences suggest that people can
be highly resilient even in the face of numerous and/or
severe stressors [4]. For some individuals, however, the
experience of stress interacts with existing personal vulnerabilities (e.g., dispositional factors, trauma history,
etc.) to augment the effects of any single individual risk
factor to increase the risk of IPA. In such situations, the
stressor is likely to interact with this personal vulnerability to produce more personal and relational distress, which
in turn may spillover into greater relationship conflict and
a higher likelihood of IPA.

Addresses
1
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
2
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Stress-vulnerability models of stress and IPA

Corresponding author: Eckhardt, Christopher I (eckhardt@purdue.edu)

Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:153157

This review comes from a themed issue on Relationships and stress
Edited by Gery C Karantzas, Marita P McCabe and Jeffry A
Simpson

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.09.005
2352-250/# 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

To be in a close relationship is to share ones life with

another, with all the positives as well as the stresses and
strains that accompany two lives intertwined. And despite
what relationships appear to be on social media or in
discussions with friends or family, so much of everyday
life in a close relationship involves the management of a
multitude of stressors. Such stressors can be external to
the relationship (e.g., paying bills on time, health concerns, job stress, neighborhood disadvantage), while
others emerge from factors internal to the relationship
(e.g., negative/escalating interaction styles, disagreements about parenting, work-life balance). Is there a
particular stressful life event threshold such that anyone
who experiences stress above that level is likely to act
aggressively towards a relationship partner? We argue that
the evidence suggests the contrary; that is, consistent with
existing stress-vulnerability frameworks [1,2], the direct
www.sciencedirect.com

While the bulk of prior research on stress has approached

this construct as a phenomenon that primarily affects
individuals, understanding the stress-IPA association
requires a dyadic perspective [5]. Dyadic stress refers
to a stressful event or encounter that involves both
partners, either because each are exposed to the same
stressful event, or because one partners stress spills over
into the relationship and affects the dyad [6]. Models
positing an interaction between the presence of stress
and a variety of contextual and dispositional factors in
predicting important dyadic outcomes are not new [5].
Stress-vulnerability models outlining the impact of stress
in couples and families have been in existence since the
1940s [7]. These models have long noted the interplay
between (a) the severity of acute and ongoing stressors,
and (b) the quality of the couples problem solving
abilities as key determinants of relationship health
[8,9]. Subsequent models [1,6] have refined this approach by highlighting the role of individual vulnerabilities (e.g., neuroticism, traumatic childhood experiences)
and various individual and dyadic maladaptive processes
for coping with major stressors (e.g., poor empathy;
hostile interaction styles). Of note, these researchers
have shown that chronic minor daily stresses can be just
as toxic to relationship functioning as more short-term
major stresses [6]. In the specific context of IPA, Leonards [2] contextual model also suggests that stress plays
a prominent role in understanding partner abuse, but
primarily in the context of existing individual and dyadic
vulnerabilities.
Thus, existing models suggest that the link between
stress and IPA is moderated by an interdependent mix
of (a) state and trait factors internal to the person, (b)
situational/contextual factors, and (c) impaired ability to
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:153157

154 Relationships and stress

manage reactions to stress. The relatively small amount of

research on this topic confirms the utility of this approach.
In addition to a main effect of stress on IPA [3,10], the
stress-IPA association is also moderated by the following
variables: gender, with males exhibiting stronger stressIPA associations [11,12]; high self-esteem [11], lack of
closeness to ones parent [11], poor emotion regulation
[13], use of escalating strategies during relationship conflict [13], high masculine sex role ideology [14], greater
levels of childhood adversity [15], greater attachment
anxiety [16], neuroticism [17], and prior and/or recent
IPA victimization [10,18]. In addition, the stress-IPA
association is stronger in: military (vs. civilian) samples
[12], clinical (vs. community) samples [19,12], individuals
with more PTSD symptoms (rather than presence/absence of a diagnosis) [12], and in studies using standardized measures of marital discord [19].

Stress, IPA, and instigating, impelling, and

inhibiting factors
It is clear that stress interacts with a variety of factors to
increase risk for IPA. The remaining questions that are not
addressed by existing stress-vulnerability models are (1)
how best to organize the diverse set of interactive risk
factors for IPA, and (2) how to dynamically model how such
factors actually work to increase IPA risk. To address these
limitations, we have applied the I3 Model (I-Cubed) to

this association as a process-focused, metatheoretical model providing an organizational structure and dynamic
model for predicting behavior [20,21], including IPA
[22]. The I3 Model begins with the basic assumption
that people are more likely to perpetrate IPA when the
strength of the urge to aggress exceeds the strength of the
inhibitory forces counteracting this urge. According to the
model, three key processes underlie IPA perpetration:
instigation, impellance, and inhibition (with the italicized
vowels representing the three Is in the I3 Model). Instigation refers to the exposure to discrete situational events
that are normatively provoking. Such events can trigger
hostile cognitive, affective, physiological, and even preliminary behavioral tendencies that prime individuals to
aggress [23]. Impellance refers to the amplification of the
urge to aggress in response to instigation. In some situations, people may shrug off an instigating trigger, while
others may react strongly and experience a powerful
aggressive urge. Finally, inhibition refers to the counteraction to this urge. When the strength of inhibition exceeds
the strength of the urge to aggress, people behave nonaggressively; when the reverse is true, they behave aggressively. The main theory drawn from the I3 Model is
known as perfect storm theory, [20] which posits that the
greatest likelihood for IPA occurs when instigation and
impellance processes are strong and inhibitory processes
are weak (Figure 1). In the following section, we apply the

Figure 1

I3 Model-Based IPA Mediating Mechanisms:

The Perfect Storm Theory

IPA-Impelling Forces

High Instigation

IPA
Victimization

Relationship
Distress

IPA-Inhibiting Forces

High Impellance

Increased
Negative Affect
and Anger

Low Inhibition / High Disinhibition

SelfRegulatory
Depletion

Alcohol
Intoxication

Current Opinion in Psychology

The I3 Model predicts that IPA results from a combination of instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors. The main theory drawn from the I3 Model
is known as perfect storm theory, which posits that the greatest likelihood for IPA would occur when instigation and impellance processes are
strong and inhibitory processes are weak.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:153157

www.sciencedirect.com

Stress and intimate partner aggression Eckhardt and Parrott 155

I3 Model in order to better understand the moderated

associations between stress and IPA.
Instigation. The bulk of stressful life events are not
inherently aggressogenic. However, certain types of dyadic stressors appear to be reliably provocative and instigating. One of the strongest predictors of IPA
perpetration is recent IPA victimization [24,25]. In the
context of the I3 model, being a target of a partners
psychological or physical aggression is a powerful source
of instigation that sets the contextual stage for an aggressive response [18], especially when combined with additional impelling and disinhibiting factors [26]. In
addition, relationship discord is moderately associated
with IPA perpetration [19] and is therefore a potentially
aggressogenic context. However, findings from longitudinal studies indicate that improvements in marital satisfaction do not necessarily lead to reductions in IPA
[17,27]. It is also likely that while many everyday
stressors are not inherently aggression instigating, the
dyadic experience of stress may trigger existing relational
processes that become instigating (e.g., arguments about
family that involve insulting, contemptuous, and belligerent interaction styles).
Impellance. Research suggests that certain dispositional
factors moderate the association between stressful life
events and IPA. Higher levels of dating aggression were
observed in stressed adolescents with high self-esteem
and low levels of closeness to a parent [11]. In a longitudinal study of married couples, high levels of neuroticism and high relationship distress predicted IPA over a
four-year period, especially among those with poor problem solving behaviors (i.e., diminished inhibition) [17].
While this literature is somewhat sparse, the available
data suggest that impelling factors may interact with
stressful life events in ways that further destabilize dyadic
adjustment and that construct a clear pathway to an
aggressive response.
Inhibition/disinhibition. Whether partners continue down
the path toward aggression largely depends on the quality
and availability of individual and dyadic aggression inhibiting factors. Such factors have been a central component of models of dyadic stress [1,6,7], which posit that
many different types of stress, but especially minor
stressful events existing outside the relationships, spill
over into the relationship context and activate individual
adaptive coping and problem-solving responses. These
responses are enacted in the broader context of the
couples prevailing communication patterns and interactional style. To the extent that individuals use maladaptive coping responses (e.g., poor emotion regulation
strategies) in the face of stressful life events, especially
in concert with existing personal vulnerabilities and IPA
histories, these external stressors can trigger additional
stress within the couple (e.g., distancing and ostracism).
www.sciencedirect.com

This internal stress is posited to deplete existing coping

resources at the individual and dyadic levels and place
couples at risk for aggressive interactional styles. The
sparse research available on these processes within the
stressIPA literature suggest preliminary support for this
approach: highly stressed women with poor emotion
regulation skills and a tendency to use conflict escalation
strategies showed the highest levels of IPA perpetration
[13]; undergraduates high in stressful personal problems
and an attachment style indicating an avoidant response
style reported higher levels of IPA perpetration [16]; and
among community couples, maladaptive relational styles
mediated the association between perceived stress and
sexual coercion [28]. Thus, these results suggest that
maladaptive regulatory skills deployed during stressful
contexts increase the risk of IPA perpetration.
Only two studies have examined I3 perfect storm conditions in the context of the stressIPA association. Hellmuth and McNulty [17] assessed 169 couples over their
first four years of marriage. Risk for IPA was highest among
couples reporting higher levels of stress and negative
interactions (high instigation), high levels of neuroticism
(high impellance), and poor problem solving skills (low
inhibition). As noted by the authors, while neuroticism
may contribute to IPA via the impelling effects of anger
and negative affect, it is also possible that individuals high
in neuroticism have impaired self-regulatory processes.
Similarly, Finkel et al. [29] assessed changes in IPA
perpetration over a six-month period in a newlywed
sample. Participants reported perpetrating more IPA when
partner neuroticism (labeled as an instigator) and dispositional anger (impellor) were strong, and psychosocial stress
was high (conceptualized as a disinhibitor).

Future research directions regarding stress

and IPA: the role of heavy drinking
Research investigating factors that moderate the association between stress and IPA is relatively limited in both
number and scope. For example, there is precious little
research in this area examining one of the most consistent
predictors of IPA: alcohol intoxication. People drink alcohol in response to stressful events. Tension reduction and
stress-response dampening models, which generally posit
that alcohol reduces stress, have received considerable
empirical support [30]. However, support for the notion
that alcohol intoxication invariably decreases stress is
equivocal [31,32], leading to the advancement of other
models that may explain these contradictory findings. For
example, Sayettes appraisal-disruption model [31] purports that effects of alcohol on stress depend upon the
temporal relationship between alcohol consumption and
exposure to stress-producing cues. When alcohol consumption precedes exposure to stress-inducing cues, alcohol disrupts initial appraisal of these cues and,
consequently results in stress reduction. However, when
exposure to stress-inducing cues precedes alcohol
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:153157

156 Relationships and stress

consumption, encoding of threat-related information is not

impaired and alcohol is posited to increase stress. Consistent with this view, the attention-allocation model of
alcohol myopia theory [33,34] posits that acute alcohol
intoxication impairs controlled cognitive processing
which, in turn, restricts the range of internal and external
cues that can be perceived and processed by the imbiber.
Consequently, attention resources are allocated to cues
that are most salient in a given situation. When stressinducing cues are salient, alcohol-induced myopia is likely
focused on these cues and exacerbates stress.
Thus, it is clear that the use of alcohol as a coping
response to self-medicate acute stress does not always
lead to the desired outcome. And, in addition to potentially exacerbating stress, heavy alcohol use heightens risk
for myriad negative outcomes. For example, acute alcohol
intoxication exacerbates relationship conflict [35]. This
effect is particularly relevant when husbands and wives
heavy drinking patterns are discrepant, as such couples
are more likely to report decreased marital satisfaction
over time that may ultimately lead to relationship dissolution [36]. Additionally, research indicates that both
partners alcohol use independently predicts the frequency of each partners physical IPA perpetration, and alcohol
use by both partners interacts to predict mens IPA
perpetration [37]. Together, these results suggest the
need for more focused research on alcohol use as a
consequence of stress and the effects of heavy drinking
on the dynamics of close relationships.

Acknowledgements
Christopher I. Eckhardt, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Dominic J. Parrott, Department of
Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302. Preparation of
this manuscript was facilitated, in part, by National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism grant RO1AA020578 awarded to the two authors.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1.

Karney BR, Bradbury TN: The longitudinal course of marital

quality and stability: a review of theory, method, and research.
Psychol Bull 1995, 118:3-34 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.118.1.3.

2.

Leonard KE: Drinking patterns and intoxication in marital

violence: review, critique, and future directions for
research.Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering
Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Bethesda, MD: National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 1993, 253-280.

3.

Cano A, Vivian D: Are life stressors associated with marital

violence? J Fam Psychol 2003, 17:302-314 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.302.

4.

Bonanno GA, Westphal M, Mancini AD: Resilience to loss and

potential trauma. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2011, 7:511-535 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104526.

5.


Randall AK, Bodenmann G: The role of stress on close

relationships and marital satisfaction. Clin Psychol Rev 2009,
29:105-115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004.
Comprehensive review of the role of stress in dyadic contexts, including
an overview of definitions, theories, and applications to the relationship
context.
6.

Bodenmann G: Dyadic coping and its significance for marital

functioning. In Couples Coding with Stress: Emerging
Perspectives on Dyadic Coping. Edited by Revenson TA, Kayser K,
Bodenmann G. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association; 2005.

7.

Hill R: Families Under Stress: Adjustment to the Crises of War

Separation and Return. Oxford, England: Harper; 1949.

8.

Hill R: Generic features of families under stress. Soc Casework

1958, 39:139-150.

9.

McCubbin HI, Joy CB, Cauble AE, Comeau JK, Patterson JM,
Needle RH: Family stress and coping: a decade review. J
Marriage Fam 1980, 42:855-871 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351829.

Conclusion
As noted by relationship scholars [38], contemporary
Americans look to marriage and close relationships to
fulfill rather lofty individual goals related to personal
growth and self-actualization. To make this version of
close relationships work effectively, it requires a high and
consistent investment of time, energy, and relational skill
to achieve and maintain such a deep emotional bond.
Unfortunately, research indicates that couples are more
stressed today than in previous eras [39,40], especially in
the form of minor daily life hassles and annoyances (e.g.,
work-life balance issues, financial concerns). The research reviewed in this paper suggests that the experience
of stress is linearly related to the perpetration of IPA,
although the nature of this association is more complex
than this simple correlation would indicate. As informed
by both stress-vulnerability models [2] and the I3 Model
[22], some stressful events can themselves be aggression-provoking (e.g., IPA victimization), while others
interact with (a) personal vulnerabilities that promote
an urge to aggress, and (b) deficiencies in the ability to
regulate emotional responses and/or effectively problemsolve within the dyad.

Conflict of interest statement

Nothing declared.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:153157

10. Okuda M, Olfson M, Wang S, Rubio JM, Xu Y, Blanco C:


Correlates of intimate partner violence perpetration: results
from a national epidemiologic survey. J Trauma Stress 2015,
28:49-56 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.21986.
The authors analyzed a large-scale, population-based survey of American adults (NESARC; N = 25,631) and found that IPA perpetration was
predicted by stress and a history of IPA victimization.
11. Chen MS, Foshee VA: Stressful life events and the perpetration

of adolescent dating abuse. J Youth Adolesc 2015, 44:696-707
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0181-0.
The authors studied a sample of 1125 adolescent males and females and
found that gender moderated the association between stress and IPA,
with boys high in stress at highest risk for IPA.
12. Taft CT, Watkins LE, Stafford J, Street AE, Monson CM:
Posttraumatic stress disorder and intimate relationship
problems: a meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 2011, 79:2233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022196.
13. Price RK, Bell KM, Lilly M: The interactive effects of PTSD,
emotion regulation, and anger management strategies on
female-perpetrated IPV. Violence Vict 2014, 29:907-926 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00123.
14. Jakupcak M, Lisak D, Roemer L: The role of masculine ideology
and masculine gender role stress in mens perpetration of
www.sciencedirect.com

Stress and intimate partner aggression Eckhardt and Parrott 157

relationship violence. Psychol Men Masc 2002, 3:97-106 http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037//1524-9220.3.2.97.
15. Roberts AL, McLaughlin KA, Conron KJ, Koenen KC: Adulthood
stressors, history of childhood adversity, and risk of
perpetration of intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med 2011,
40:128-138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.016.
16. Gormley B, Lopez FG: Psychological abuse perpetration in
college dating relationships. J Interpers Violence 2010, 24:204218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334404.
17. Hellmuth JC, McNulty JK: Neuroticism, marital violence, and the
 moderating role of stress and behavioral skills. J Pers Soc
Psychol 2008, 95:166-180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.95.1.166.
In one of the few longitudinal studies of stress and IPA, the authors
reported that while neuroticism was related to IPA over the first four years
of marriage, those at highest risk for IPA were high in neuroticism,
experienced higher levels of stress, and possessed less effective problem
solving abilities.
18. Rosenfield D, Jouriles EN, Mueller V, McDonald R: When at-risk

teens are violent toward romantic partners: the role of
common stressors. Psychol Violence 2013, 3:260-272 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031029.
In this study of 92 male and female teens, the authors reported that a
recent history of teen dating violence moderated the association between
life stress and IPA perpetration. The effects of life stress on IPA were longlasting and appeared to be re-kindled with new experiences of IPA
victimization.
19. Stith SM, Green NM, Smith DB, Ward DB: Marital satisfaction
and marital discord as risk markers for intimate partner
violence: a meta-analytic review. J Fam Violence 2008, 23:149160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9137-4.
20. Finkel EJ: Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of
intimate partner violence. Rev Gen Psychol 2007, 11:193-207
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.193.
21. Finkel EJ: The I3 model: metatheory, theory, and evidence. Adv
 Exp Soc Psychol 2014, 49:1-104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B9780-12-800052-6.00001-9.
Comprehensive overview of the I3 Model, including theoretical origins, all
empirical tests of the model, and its ability to predict a wide range of
behaviors.
22. Finkel EJ, Eckhardt CI: Intimate partner violence. In The Oxford
 Handbook of Close Relationships. Edited by Simpson JA, Campbell
L. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013:452-474.
In this chapter, the authors specifically apply the I3 Model to IPA and
clarify the conditions under which IPA should be most likely to occur.
23. Berkowitz L: Towards a general theory of anger and emotional
aggression: implications of the cognitive
neoassociationistic perspective for the analysis of anger and
other emotions. In Perspectives on Anger and Emotion:
Advances in Social Cognition., vol 6. Edited by Wyer RS, Srull TK.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993:1-46.
24. Field CA, Caetano R: Longitudinal model predicting mutual
partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in
the United States general population. Violence Vict 2005,
20:499-511 http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2005.20.5.499.
25. Stith SM, Smith DB, Penn CE, Ward DB, Tritt D: Intimate partner
physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: a
meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav 2004, 10:65-98.

www.sciencedirect.com

26. Sprunger JG, Eckhardt CI, Parrott DJ. Mutuality of violence and
risk for perpetration of intimate partner aggression. Manuscript
under review.
27. Lawrence E, Bradbury TN: Trajectories of change in physical
aggression and marital satisfaction. J Fam Psychol 2007,
21:236-247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.236.
28. Salwen JK, OLeary KD: Adjustment problems and maladaptive
relationship style: a mediational model of sexual coercion in
intimate relationships. J Interpers Violence 2013, 28:1969-1988
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260512471079.
29. Finkel EJ, DeWall CN, Slotter EB, McNulty JK, Pond RS Jr,

Atkins DC: Using I3 theory to clarify when dispositional
aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence
perpetration. J Pers Soc Psychol 2012, 102:533-549.
Four studies demonstrate that across diverse samples and methodologies, IPA perpetration was highest when aggression-promoting traits
were present, provocation was strong, and inhibition was weak.
30. Greeley J, Oei T: Alcohol and tension reduction. In
Psychological Theories of Drinking and Alcoholism, edn 2. Edited
by Leonard KE, Blane HT.New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1999.
31. Cappell H, Herman CP: Alcohol and tension reduction: a review.
Q J Stud Alcohol 1972, 31:33-40.
32. Sayette MA: An appraisal-disruption model of alcohols effects
on stress responses in social drinkers. Psychol Bull 1993,
114:459-476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.459.
33. Steele CM, Josephs RA: Alcohol myopia: its prized and
dangerous effects. Am Psychol 1990, 45:921-933 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921.
34. Taylor SP, Leonard KE: Alcohol and human physical
aggression. Aggress Theor Empir Rev 1983, 2:77-101.
35. MacDonald G, Zanna MP, Holmes JG: An experimental test of
the role of alcohol in relationship conflict. J Exp Soc Psychol
2000, 36:182-193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1412.
36. Homish GG, Leonard KE: The drinking partnership and marital
satisfaction: the longitudinal influence of discrepant drinking.
J Consult Clin Psychol 2007, 75:43-51 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-006X.75.1.43.
37. Testa M, Kubiak A, Quigley BM et al.: Husband and wife alcohol
use as independent or interactive predictors of intimate
partner violence. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2012, 73:268-276 http://
dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2012.73.268.
38. Finkel EJ, Hui CM, Carswell KL, Larson GM: The suffocation of
marriage: climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen.
Psychol Inq 2014, 25:1-41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1047840X.2014.863723.
39. Amato PR, Booth A, Johnson DR, Rogers SJ: Alone Together: How
Marriage in America is Changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; 2009.
40. Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D: Whos stressed? Distributions of
psychological stress in the United States in probability
samples from 1983, 2006, and 2009. J Appl Soc Psychol 2012,
42:1320-1334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.2012.00900.x.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:153157

The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.